FW: rsync performance

Ben Escoto bescoto at stanford.edu
Sun Sep 14 15:45:00 EST 2003

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:28:21 -0700 jw schultz <jw at pegasys.ws> wrote:
> The referenced mail message describes the benchmark as:
> | The directory backed up or restored had 10000 1-byte files
> That isn't a very good benchmark.  10,000 files is not that
> many and being 1 byte means that all that is measured is the
> filesystem meta-data, node-creation time and overhead.

The purpose of that benchmark was to measure those factors.

> That the test used the --delete option indicates that some
> percentage of the files would have not been touched by rsync.  My
> guess is that the unmodified files account for cp -a being slower;
> rsync processed fewer files than cp.  The fact that the benchmark
> description does not indicate the actual rate of change (a
> determining factor for rsync and, i assume, rdiff-backup) makes it
> decidedly dubious.

The description was slightly unclear; the numbers in the first group
indicate copying into an empty directory, so both processed the same
number of files.

> I believe the speed complaint had to do with files that have
> significant amounts of data in them.

My remark was off-topic then.

Ben Escoto
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/attachments/20030913/987dae6c/attachment.bin

More information about the rsync mailing list